This copy is for your personal non-commercial use only. To order presentation-ready copies of Toronto Star content for distribution to colleagues, clients or customers, or inquire about permissions/licensing, please go to: www.TorontoStarReprints.com

Former Harper aide says Jaffer should apologize

Tory caucus points to Ontario’s Crown to justify plea bargain, while former PM spokesperson demands public apology from Jaffer.

Former MP Rahim Jaffer speaks to media after pleading guilty to careless driving after charges of speeding, drunken driving and possession of cocaine were withdrawn in an Orangeville court. (March 9, 2010) (ANDREW WALLACE / TORONTO STAR) | Order this photo

By Tonda MacCharlesOttawa Bureau

Wed., March 10, 2010

OTTAWA – Most of Rahim Jaffer’s Conservative caucus colleagues dashed, squirmed, or told reporters to ask Ontario’s Crown why their former national caucus chair got a “break” – as the judge called it—from prosecution on drunk driving and cocaine possession charges.

But Kory Teneycke, a former spokesman for Prime Minister Stephen Harper, said Jaffer is the one who owes the public an explanation and an apology.

“I think there are probably a lot of Canadians who are looking at this story right now and wondering how is it that these charges could be swept aside in such a manner,” Teneycke told CTV. “It makes one wonder sometimes if there isn’t two levels of justice, one for high-profile people and another for everybody else.”

Jaffer’s “break” from the justice system and a recent PEI airport tantrum of his wife, federal cabinet minister Helena Guergis, are politically damaging for the Conservatives unless the couple comes forward and shows contrition for their behaviour, said Teneycke.

“This kind of stuff is toxic to the Conservative brand. It speaks to a sense of entitlement and different rules applying, and I think it’s actually a very serious issue for the government at a political level. This is watercooler talk. This is Tim Hortons talk. This is the kind of stuff you’ve got to nip in the bud.”

But Wednesday, after the national caucus meeting in Ottawa, most Conservatives raced away from cameras and microphones, and declined to comment.

Some expressed dismay at the questions.

Others, including ministers’ Peter MacKay and Tony Clement repeated the lines from the government Tuesday, that it was a matter for the provincial prosecuting officials, and not appropriate for federal politicians to comment on.

“I mean it’s curious to go from a narcotic possession charge and an impaired driving charge down to a careless charge which, most of those – I don’t know – it’s six points or something (off a drivers’ licence) plus a couple of fines. But I don’t know the facts, I can’t comment on something I don’t know anything about.”

The Star, citing police sources, reported Wednesday that the more serious charges were dropped because a rookie OPP officer failed to follow proper procedures during a strip search of Jaffer, 38.

Prosecutors overruled the police in deciding the evidence would be open to challenge, and possible exclusion at trial, under the Charter of Rights.

Tainted evidence – or evidence obtained in violation of an individual’s rights – may sometimes be excluded as a remedy for the rights breach. Or, as the Supreme Court of Canada recently ruled, a rights violation may be addressed at the sentencing stage.

Ontario Attorney General Chris Bentley offered no further detail about why Crown prosecutors did not bring all the initial charges to trial.

Instead, the Crown attorney dropped two charges, and accepted Jaffer’s guilty plea to a charge of careless driving, and a $500 fine.

The counts against Jaffer, a former Tory MP from Edmonton, simply couldn’t be proven in court, Bentley told reporters.

“I would ask you to consider the transcript in court. As I recall the crown indicated, in the estimation of the crown the case couldn’t be proven in court.”

Bentley said he knows the public speculation about why the case did not proceed but “every case is a collection of facts, evidence and the applicable law and it is not always capable to be sliced down to one issue or not.”

At the end of the day, the crown makes a decision, he said.

“The decision has been made by the crown. I am interested, given the public reaction I want to make sure there is nothing amiss. My indication so far is the crown very responsibly and seriously considered all the matters in this case,” he said.

The chief prosecutor, Bentley said, has assured him that the crown carefully and appropriately considered all relevant factors in the case.

Since Jaffer is a public figure, a better explanation of what happened is probably a good idea, Bentley admitted.

“I think the crown explaining more fully is probably an appropriate issue to be raised,” he said. “But the public should have confidence in the administration of justice, regardless of who the individual is. The decision is going to be the same, based on the facts and the evidence.”

Queen’s law professor Donald Stuart said when serious criminal charges like these were withdrawn then a detailed explanation should have been given in the courtroom, but added since that didn’t happen then it’s up to Bentley to enlighten the public.

“There might have been good reasons for withdrawing (the charges) but there does need to be an explanation,” said Stuart, who went on to criticize federal Justice Rob Nicholson for spouting tough on crime rhetoric any other time but declining comment when it was a former Conservative MP.

“I think there is a lot of hypocrisy going on in the federal government,” he said.

Meanwhile, Public Safety Minister Vic Toews office refused comment on a letter signed by Toews that was published today by Canwest News.

The Toews letter, addressed to “Friends, colleagues and others,” blames two reporters for a “smear job on behalf of the Liberals” in their reporting on the Jaffer case.

Toews said their references to the judge’s past Conservative connections had nothing to do with the Jaffer matter, and that he had told reporters that any decisions were up to the provincial prosecutors’ office.

“I believe the Liberal – the Liberal government in Ontario would be responsible for that,” Toews said Tuesday, and again in his letter.

“I certainly have no knowledge why the province decided to handle the prosecution in that way. I suspect the decision was made because there were flaws in the case involving the impaired driving and cocaine charges initially laid against Mr. Jaffer and that a careless driving charge was all that the facts and the law could reasonably support,” Toews writes.

Judges rarely overrule sentence recommendations in plea bargains, and certainly cannot reverse decisions made on charges that are never brought before them, Toews notes.

He goes on to launch a bitter, personal attack on a Winnipeg Free Press reporter.

With files from Tanya Talaga and Richard J. Brennan

Delivered dailyThe Morning Headlines Newsletter

The Toronto Star and thestar.com, each property of Toronto Star Newspapers Limited, One Yonge Street, 4th Floor, Toronto, ON, M5E 1E6. You can unsubscribe at any time. Please contact us or see our privacy policy for more information.

More from the Toronto Star & Partners

LOADING

Copyright owned or licensed by Toronto Star Newspapers Limited. All rights reserved. Republication or distribution of this content is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Toronto Star Newspapers Limited and/or its licensors. To order copies of Toronto Star articles, please go to: www.TorontoStarReprints.com